Cases

DYK, Circuit Judge. Defendants Shasta Technologies, LLC; Conductive Technologies, Inc.; Instacare Corp.; and Pharmatech Solutions, Inc. (collectively, “Shasta”) appeal from a decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granting a preliminary injunction in favor of Plaintiffs LifeSean Scotland, Ltd. and Li-feScan, Inc. (“LifeSean”). The injunction prohibited Shasta from making, using

794 F.Supp.2d 634 (2011) TATTOO ART, INC., A Virginia Stock Corporation, Plaintiff, v. TAT INTERNATIONAL, LLC, A Michigan Limited Liability Company, and Kirk A. Knapp, Individually, Defendants. Civil Action No. 2:10cv323. United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Norfolk Division. June 29, 2011. *637 Kristen R. Jurjevich,

ROGER VINSON, Senior United States District Judge *1319The plaintiff brought this diversity case against the defendant, alleging several counts of negligence after she was seriously injured while diving off a pier into Santa Rosa Sound at Pensacola Beach, Florida. The defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment (doc. 15) (Def. Mot.); the plaintiff has filed a r

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JEFFREY B. SEDLIK, an individual, No. 24-3367 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 2:21-cv-01102- DSF-MRW v. KATHERINE VON DRACHENBERG, an individual; OPINION AKA Kat Von D; KAT VON D, INC., a California corporation; HIGH VOLTAGE TATTOO

Hon. Cynthia Bashant, United States District Judge Plaintiffs Crafty Productions, Inc. ("CPI") and Crafty Productions, LLC ("CPL") (collectively "Plaintiffs") commenced this action against numerous defendants alleging copyright infringement of CPI's original craft designs and products, trade dress infringement, intentional interference with prospective business advantage, unfair competition, breach of contract, and fraud. Many par

DYK, Circuit Judge, dissenting, with whom Circuit Judge HUGHES, joins. I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding that Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Medipart, Inc., 976 F.2d 700 (Fed.Cir. 1992), and Jazz Photo Corp. v. International Trade Commission, 264 F.3d 1094 (Fed.Cir.2001), remain good law. First, I agree with the government that Mallinck-rodt was wrong

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2008-5181 HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., and HONEYWELL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee,

609 F.3d 1292 (2010) HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., and Honeywell Intellectual Properties, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee, and Lockheed Martin Corporation, Defendant-Appellee, and L-3 Communications Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. No. 2008-5181. United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. May 25, 2010. Rehearing

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION GARY ALLEN FEESS, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs Lindsey Webb, Anastasia Booth, Kina Abrams, Jayme Sanchez, Amy Muir, and Nancy Muir (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring this putative nationwide class action lawsuit against defendants Carter’s, Inc. (“Carter’s”); Avery Dennison, Inc. (“Avery”); Pacific Concept Industries (USA),

FEIKENS, District Judge, Concurring in part and Dissenting in part. I begin this opinion by noting that my colleagues and I agree on a number of points regarding this case. We agree that this opinion does not foreclose any outcome on the case in chief; instead, its decisions are limited to the grant of the preliminary injunction below. We also agree that Plaintiff Lexmark failed

ORDER RE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES [DOC. ##211, 215, 219, 224, 227, 229, 233.] DOLLY M. GEE, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the parties’ motions for summary judgment or summary adjudication of issues. [Doc. ## 211, 215, 219, 224, 227, 229, 233.] The Court held a hearing on the motions on September 12, 2014. The Court has duly considered the argume

ACCEPTED 13-15-00151-CV THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 9/8/2015 4:46:08 PM

402 F.Supp.2d 1312 (2005) BIG DOG MOTORCYCLES, L.L.C., Plaintiff, v. BIG DOG HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant. No. 04-2419 JWL. United States District Court, D. Kansas. December 2, 2005. *1313 *1314 David E. Everson, Jr., Marc D. McKay, Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP, Kansas City, MO, Sandra J. Wunderli

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 04a0364p.06 UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ X

Thomas B. Russel, Senior Judge I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff, Deere & Company ("Deere"), brings this action alleging that Defendant, *848FIMCO, Inc. ("FIMCO"), is acting in violation of federal trademark and common law by producing and distributing trailed agricultural sprayers and applicators bearing green and

THIS OPINION IS A PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB Mailed: September 10, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____ Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ______ Swiss Grill Ltd., John Hartwig, Christopher Hartwig and Matthew Hartwig v.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant v. IMPRESSION PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant-Appellant QUALITY CARTRIDGES, INC., JOHN DOES, 1-20, BLUE TRADING LLC, EXPRINT INTERNATIONAL, INC., LD PRODUCTS, INC., PRINTRONIC CORPORATION, TESEN DEVELOPMENT (HONG KONG) CO. LTD., BENIGNO ADEVA AND HIS

ACCEPTED 13-14-00725-cv THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 7/23/2